Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Al Gore and the U.N.'s climate change panel win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 09:07 AM
Details soon.

Al Gore for president. This man is good in my opinion. Of course he's a Democrat like Clinton :yeah:

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 10:01 AM
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work raising awareness about global warming.

The Nobel committee cited them "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

The IPCC and Gore will each receive a gold medal, a diploma and a share of $1.5 million. The award ceremony will be held December 10 in Oslo, Norway.

"Through the scientific reports it has issued over the past two decades, the IPCC has created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming," Ole Danbolt Mjoes, chairman of the Nobel committee, said in making the announcement.

"Thousands of scientists and officials from over 100 countries have collaborated to achieve greater certainty as to the scale of the warming."

The Nobel committee praised Gore as being "one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians."

He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted," said Mjoes

Gore collected two Oscars earlier this year for his documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which followed him on a worldwide tour publicizing the dangers of climate change.

Last month he also picked up an Emmy -- the highest award in U.S. television -- for "Current TV." The show, which Gore co-created, describes itself as a global television network that gives its viewers the opportunity to create and influence its programming.

Previous American recipients of the peace prize include former presidents Jimmy Carter in 2002, Woodrow Wilson in 1919 and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

In 1973, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shared the award with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho. The Rev. Martin Luther King received the honor in 1964.

Gore served as Vice President for eight years under President Bill Clinton. He won the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000 and ran against George W. Bush.

But he failed in his bid for the White House -- despite winning more votes than Bush -- when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his challenge over voting results in Florida, securing an electoral college majority for Bush.

In recent weeks Gore has been the target of a campaign to persuade him to enter the 2008 presidential race at the 11th hour

Gore has repeatedly denied that he has any plans to run again, but this week a group of grassroots Democrats calling themselves "Draft Gore" took out a full-page ad in the New York Times in a bid to change his mind.

"Your country needs you now, as do your party, and the planet you are fighting so hard to save," the group said in an open letter.

"America and the Earth need a hero right now, someone who will transcend politics as usual and bring real hope to our country and to the world."

A spokeswoman for the IPCC, which draws on the work of 2,000 scientists, said the panel was surprised that it had been chosen to share the award with Gore and praised his contribution to environmental campaigning.

"We would have been happy even if he had received it alone because it is a recognition of the importance of this issue," spokeswoman Carola Traverso Saibante said, The Associated Press reported.

(CNN.COM)

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Further proof of USA's idiocy for not voting him president.

Hope you are enjoying Bush my southern neighbors.

savesthedizzle
10-12-2007, 11:32 AM
Further proof of USA's idiocy for not voting him president.

Hope you are enjoying Bush my southern neighbors.

We DID vote him president :sad: That's the worst part.

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 11:43 AM
Further proof of USA's idiocy for not voting him president.

Republicans = bad ones
Democrats = good ones

I guess the people living in the US still haven't figured this one out.

stealthisnick
10-12-2007, 12:03 PM
Republicans = bad ones
Democrats = good ones

I guess the people living in the US still haven't figured this one out.

wrong
Republicans=very bad ones
Democtats=bad ones

people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

Snowwy
10-12-2007, 12:23 PM
This man is a joke, most hes the one that originally tunred down Kyoto in the US back in 96 or 97, whenever it was new and now he wins a Peace Prize by saying that it shouldnt have been turned down by the 'dumb' governement. Also a lot of his 'facts' are iffy, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but does not affect the temperature anywere close to what he says. And Im not sure if he talked about this in his movie but

REGULAR FUEL IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (according to his other 'facts') THAN BIOFUEL.

Since you probably wont believe me, I might explain that in depth later cuz I have to go to school. Im just completely disappointed in this choice and how this hypocrite never wins presendency.

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 12:25 PM
people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

Or Pol Pot in Cambodia.
And we of course should not forget how the genocide was stopped in the Balkans. I would not give Clinton all the credit, but if you want to, go ahead, I have no problem with that.

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 12:28 PM
I wonder why they gave him the prize for PEACE. After all, one would logically think that any meritorious work done on the cause of Global Warming would naturally fall into one of the SCIENCE categories and therefore ............................. Oh, wait!

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Im just completely disappointed in this choice and how this hypocrite never wins presendency.

The money he earns from the publicity will fill his private jet with jet fuel for the rest of his life, so he can fly around the globe polluting the air and bringing his message of how we all (himself excepted) need to ride bicycles instead of driving cars. Which should be a great disappointment to the Chinese, who have just got to the stage of putting a car in every garage and now they have to go down to the dump and rescue their bicycles.

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 12:38 PM
people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

And while you are at it, you forgot Mussolini in Africa. Those Italian fascists really are the scum of the earth.

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 01:49 PM
buddyholly must be a republicans voter. you might give the nobel peace prize to bush :haha:

natasha_nana
10-12-2007, 02:32 PM
This man is a joke, most hes the one that originally tunred down Kyoto in the US back in 96 or 97, whenever it was new and now he wins a Peace Prize by saying that it shouldnt have been turned down by the 'dumb' governement.

Yeah!

Also, not sure what this has to do with Peace precisely...or why of all the nominees they thought fit to award it to Al "I jump on bandwagons" Gore...:rolleyes:

I'm all for taking action against global warming and environmental destruction...but Al Gore? An Eco Warrior? Rrrright. More like shameless attention seeking from a person who has zero credentials to be taken seriously on this matter.

Sigh.

Sparko1030
10-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Congrats to Gore :woohoo: and I hope he does decide to run for president again (although he's had so much success since the Supreme Court's partisan decision to basically give the election to Bush why should he risk a loss again? :lol: ) Right now I 'm an Obama supporter but so far he's behind Hilary who doesn't have a chance to get the swing votes its takes to get elected president-Al might be the canidate to get those crucial votes. There is an environmental movement in the ranks of the evangelical Christians and Gore may be able to capture some of those traditonal republican votes.

Regardless, its been a great year for Al, not so good for Bush, Al must get some satisfaction from that. ;) I bet Bush is wondering right now how he can get one of those 'Noo-bel Piece' awards. ( :secret: I have a hunch he's not going to get one for his efforts in Iraq.... :haha: :rolls: )

And all of the posters who hate the US so passionatly: I know its a little in the past but I just recently watched the Ken Burns' doc "The War" about WWII and if it wasn't for the US, the whole world would be a facist machine now. We're far from perfect I agree, but we have done some good in the World and I think its very easy to forget that during this current dark period in our history. I'm sure every country represented here on the mtf has something in their history to be ashamed of, do you want to be judged by all the things done in your country's name?

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 03:06 PM
Congrats to Gore :woohoo: and I hope he does decide to run for president again (although he's had so much success since the Supreme Court's partisan decision to basically give the election to Bush why should he risk a loss again? :lol: ) Right now I 'm an Obama supporter but so far he's behind Hilary who doesn't have a chance to get the swing votes its takes to get elected president-Al might be the canidate to get those crucial votes. There is an environmental movement in the ranks of the evangelical Christians and Gore may be able to capture some of those traditonal republican votes.

Regardless, its been a great year for Al, not so good for Bush, Al must get some satisfaction from that. ;) I bet Bush is wondering right now how he can get one of those 'Noo-bel Piece' awards. ( :secret: I have a hunch he's not going to get one for his efforts in Iraq.... :haha: :rolls: )

:yeah:

*Viva Chile*
10-12-2007, 03:20 PM
Gore :yeah:

well deserved, It's a shame that americans didn't elect him as president in his time.

Sparko1030
10-12-2007, 03:37 PM
Gore :yeah:

well deserved, It's a shame that americans didn't elect him as president in his time.


Actually, we did. He won the popular vote but due to the outdated electoral college system, we didnt' (with a bit of help from our wonderful Supreme Court who wouldn't allow a recount on some votes in FLA. :rolleyes: ) It is still a sore point with some of us diehards, always thinking "what if?" :lol:

Lee
10-12-2007, 04:14 PM
This man is a joke, most hes the one that originally tunred down Kyoto in the US back in 96 or 97, whenever it was new and now he wins a Peace Prize by saying that it shouldnt have been turned down by the 'dumb' governement. Also a lot of his 'facts' are iffy, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but does not affect the temperature anywere close to what he says. And Im not sure if he talked about this in his movie but

REGULAR FUEL IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (according to his other 'facts') THAN BIOFUEL.

Since you probably wont believe me, I might explain that in depth later cuz I have to go to school. Im just completely disappointed in this choice and how this hypocrite never wins presendency.


:yeah:

And for those who think he's a better president than Bush: Gore could not even spell potato (or tomato?) correctly. And I am not saying Bush is better in this regard. It's just Bush is such a horrible president that suddenly people forget all the shortcomings of Al Gore.

Sparko1030
10-12-2007, 04:22 PM
:yeah:

And for those who think he's a better president than Bush: Gore could not even spell potato (or tomato?) correctly. And I am not saying Bush is better in this regard. It's just Bush is such a horrible president that suddenly people forget all the shortcomings of Al Gore.



:scratch: Is it possible you're thinking of Dan Quayle? He was Bush I's VP. He was famous for that spelling error. Al took some flak for taking responsibility for the internet-although that was taken out of contex IMO. Even before Bush II, I liked Al Gore, although, Bush does make others I haven't liked look better,like his dad ;) .

Lee
10-12-2007, 04:57 PM
Oops, sorry if I have him mixed up with Quayle. All those VPs are pretty useless. :tape: starting with senior Bush. :tape:

NyGeL
10-12-2007, 05:20 PM
wrong
Republicans=very bad ones
Democtats=bad ones

people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

that's the way it is.

NyGeL
10-12-2007, 05:21 PM
wrong
Republicans=very bad ones
Democtats=bad ones

people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

that's the way it is.

G4.
10-12-2007, 05:35 PM
Al Gore invented the internet , he deserves it

MisterQ
10-12-2007, 05:59 PM
Oops, sorry if I have him mixed up with Quayle. All those VPs are pretty useless. :tape: starting with senior Bush. :tape:

Perhaps, but Quayle was much more useless than Gore or Bush Sr.! :scared:

It's important to remember that VP is a sort of "useless" job... ;) Except for the duties in the Senate, especially in tiebreaks.

Richard_from_Cal
10-12-2007, 06:14 PM
*Viva Chile*wrote:Gore http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/thumb.gif

well deserved, It's a shame that americans didn't elect him as president in his time.He didn't really need it; he gets all those royalties from inventing the internet, don't you know.

Al Gore invented the internet , he deserves itThen why does he have to go around parading ideas like Global Warming as his own? Forking ponce, if he ever had an original idea, it was first promulgated to him by somebody else...:rolleyes:

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 09:54 PM
buddyholly must be a republicans voter. :haha:

Alas, not even American.

ReturnWinner
10-12-2007, 10:18 PM
what a joke, he won this because he is such a big/famous american politician.

The Gucci one
10-12-2007, 10:42 PM
What a joke Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize for alarmist piece of propaganda

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmfhaH-agjxPWkj43wjLPb3rdgOgD8S7DI5O0

U.K. Judge Finds Problems in Gore Film
20 hours ago

LONDON (AP) — Some of the assertions in Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary are not supported by scientific evidence, a British judge said in ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.

The ruling was published Wednesday and it detailed High Court Judge Michael Burton's decision this month to allow film showings to go ahead in English secondary schools. But the judge said that written guidance to teachers designed to ensure Gore's views are not presented uncritically must accompany the showings.

Burton said he had no doubt the points raised in "An Inconvenient Truth" about the causes and likely effects of climate change are broadly accurate, but he found they were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Gore's film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact," Burton said. "Albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political program."

He said the government's plan to show the film violated laws banning the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom, but could proceed if teachers ensure that Gore's political views are not seen as being endorsed by schools.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for the former vice president, said the judge's decision backed key elements of the documentary.

"The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she told The Associated Press. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."

Burton outlined nine problems — including Gore's claim that sea level rises of 23 feet might occur in the immediate future — something the judge characterized as "distinctly alarmist."

He also cited claims that Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation of most of Lake Chad and the melting of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro were all caused by global warming. Burton said there was insufficient evidence to back those claims.

Burton's ruling follows a challenge from a part-time school official who complained that Gore's film was inaccurate and biased and should not be shown to pupils.

Stewart Dimmock, who works part-time on a school governing board, said he was fighting to have his children educated in an environment "free from bias and political spin."

Richard_from_Cal
10-12-2007, 11:29 PM
What a joke Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize for alarmist piece of propaganda

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmfhaH-agjxPWkj43wjLPb3rdgOgD8S7DI5O0

U.K. Judge Finds Problems in Gore Film
20 hours ago

LONDON (AP) — Some of the assertions in Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary are not supported by scientific evidence, a British judge said in ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.
.
.
.
...You found it first.--grump--:) I was just gonna hyperlink much the same story. Only, in the newspaper, my version (Cox News Service,) gives the headline:Judge slams, but doesn't ban, Gore documentary

Snowwy
10-12-2007, 11:54 PM
Im LOVING the views Im seeing on here from most people, its wonderful.

sawan66278
10-13-2007, 02:16 AM
Some of the assertions in Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary are not supported by scientific evidence, a British judge said in ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.


Um...right...Let's see...the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of specialists in the field vs. the opinion of one judge with no scientific background (and probably the owner of an SUV)...

"The judge MUST be correct", spoketh Mr. Limbaugh.

Sparko1030
10-13-2007, 03:58 AM
The ruling by the British judge harldy discredits what is said in the film rather he dislikes the way it is presented. No big deal I would say. :shrug: He is trying to get an important message across when few seemed to be listening. I expect they mention the most dramatic possibilites to get people's attention. And it seemed to work. :)

The Gucci one
10-13-2007, 04:51 AM
move along sheeple

buddyholly
10-13-2007, 01:35 PM
Um...right...Let's see...the opinion of the VAST MAJORITY of specialists in the field vs. the opinion of one judge with no scientific background (and probably the owner of an SUV)...

"The judge MUST be correct", spoketh Mr. Limbaugh

Um... right....Let's see... in the movie Big Al said some South Pacific islanders had already abandoned their islands due to rising sea water
in the movie Big Al said polar bears were drowning because of melting ice sheets
in the movie Big Al said that sea levels were going to rise 20 feet, when the actual scientific estimates are 7-23 INCHES

The makers of the movie now admit that these statements were lies. You don't need a scientific background to recognise lies. No doubt most of the Gore worshippers will point out that a few cases of cooking the books does not invalidate the entire report. But do you know what? Where good science is involved - it does.

And yes the judge may well own a SUV. I doubt he can afford to take private jets.

buddyholly
10-13-2007, 01:47 PM
He also cited claims that Hurricane Katrina.......... caused by global warming. Burton said there was insufficient evidence to back those claims.



Yes, Gore unashamedly used Hurricane Katrina to play on people's fears. If he had been honest he would have said, ''The damage caused by Hurricane Katrina was man-made. The failure of the levees was a totally man made disaster. Hurricane Katrina was a very normal category 3 hurricane, something that happens numerous times every year. The fact that it happened to hit a major city that is built below sea level is what made the damage so great. Yes folks, I want to tell you that Hurricane Katrina had absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Snowwy
10-13-2007, 03:56 PM
Hurricanes ahve been going on forever, to say that global warming caused Katrina is saying global warming has been going on since hurricanes ahve been going on which we alllll know isnt true. Unfortuanely Ive never had the joy of watch his convieniant lie so I didnt know he said that til now.

sawan66278
10-13-2007, 04:59 PM
Um... right....Let's see... in the movie Big Al said some South Pacific islanders had already abandoned their islands due to rising sea water
in the movie Big Al said polar bears were drowning because of melting ice sheets
in the movie Big Al said that sea levels were going to rise 20 feet, when the actual scientific estimates are 7-23 INCHES

The makers of the movie now admit that these statements were lies.

Sorry, but if you are going to make such assertions, please provide actual REFERENCES where the filmmakers have admitted to "lies" or "cooking of the facts". Where is the proof that what was presented IS indeed false. I'm sure the Nobel prize committee is more aware (and CERTAINLY more qualified) to determine the merits of Mr. Gore's efforts.

Private jets are, at times, NOT luxuries. So, don't belittle the man's efforts or principles with respect to this matter.

And, please, exit from whence you came: stage RIGHT.

Mechlan
10-13-2007, 06:21 PM
:lol:

So he presented his message in a way that raised alarm and got attention. I'd say his goal of raising awareness was achieved. I could nitpick all the details here being debated but it's funny that people can't see the forest for the trees. Minor inaccuracies or debatable scientific points in the film are inconsequential compared to what the film did for public consciousness. Fact is, there are a lot more people discussing global warming now than there were 10 years ago and his efforts have a lot to do with that. Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps. I can't say I wasn't surprised when I found out he won.

Bilbo
10-13-2007, 06:35 PM
typical bush hasn't congratulate gore. he's definately jelous as he knows he has a horrible record as a president.

undomiele
10-13-2007, 10:41 PM
For those who don't know what the panel is about:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/12/1454228

"George Monbiot is a columnist for the Guardian of London. His latest book is called Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.

The UN’s climate panel groups 2,500 researchers from more than 130 nations and issued reports this year blaming human activities for climate changes ranging from more heat waves to floods.

George Monbiot, your response to the Nobel Peace Prize winners this year today?

GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, I am delighted, particularly for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This must be the most maligned institution on earth, in that it’s a very conservative scientific panel which chooses only the science which is rock-solid, and yet it’s often portrayed as an insane radical organization trying to overthrow civilization as we know it. And it’s fought a long, hard battle for the science to be heard, and that battle is now being rewarded.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, George Monbiot, in announcing the award, the Nobel Prize committee indicated that it was seeking to actively make clear the importance and the dangers of continued global warming. Your response to their message?

GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, they have done so, but they have done so by drawing only on the science which can be absolutely trusted. In other words,the science which ends up in their reports is the science of consensus, and they exclude things even which have a very widespread scientific backing; but where there’s some legitimate dispute, they will exclude that from their reports. So this is an organization which has been as rigorous as you possibly can be in documenting what is happening to the world's climate. And yet they are constantly pilloried and attacked by rightwing climate change deniers as if they're doing the opposite. And I am very, very glad that they have been recognized in this way."

Lee
10-14-2007, 01:20 AM
:lol:

So he presented his message in a way that raised alarm and got attention. I'd say his goal of raising awareness was achieved. I could nitpick all the details here being debated but it's funny that people can't see the forest for the trees. Minor inaccuracies or debatable scientific points in the film are inconsequential compared to what the film did for public consciousness. Fact is, there are a lot more people discussing global warming now than there were 10 years ago and his efforts have a lot to do with that. Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize? Perhaps. I can't say I wasn't surprised when I found out he won.


Using lies to rasie the awareness will actually do more damage than good in the long run. It will end up sending mixed signals to people who will tune everything off at the end.

buddyholly
10-14-2007, 12:55 PM
typical bush hasn't congratulate gore. he's definately jelous as he knows he has a horrible record as a president.

As usual, wrong again!

buddyholly
10-14-2007, 01:01 PM
Sorry, but if you are going to make such assertions, please provide actual REFERENCES where the filmmakers have admitted to "lies" or "cooking of the facts". Where is the proof that what was presented IS indeed false.

Why should I provide actual REFERENCES? Big Al didn't, and just like him I don't care about the truth of what I say as long as it gets my very important message across.

Jim Jones
10-14-2007, 01:45 PM
typical bush hasn't congratulate gore. he's definately jelous as he knows he has a horrible record as a president.

Actually Bush DID congratulate Gore who had congratulated Bush when he conceded defeat in the U.S. Presidential elections.

Lillith
10-16-2007, 04:50 AM
What a joke Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize for alarmist piece of propaganda

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmfhaH-agjxPWkj43wjLPb3rdgOgD8S7DI5O0

U.K. Judge Finds Problems in Gore Film
20 hours ago

LONDON (AP) — Some of the assertions in Al Gore's Oscar-winning environmental documentary are not supported by scientific evidence, a British judge said in ruling on a challenge from a school official who did not want the film shown to students.

The ruling was published Wednesday and it detailed High Court Judge Michael Burton's decision this month to allow film showings to go ahead in English secondary schools. But the judge said that written guidance to teachers designed to ensure Gore's views are not presented uncritically must accompany the showings.

Burton said he had no doubt the points raised in "An Inconvenient Truth" about the causes and likely effects of climate change are broadly accurate, but he found they were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Gore's film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact," Burton said. "Albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political program."

He said the government's plan to show the film violated laws banning the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom, but could proceed if teachers ensure that Gore's political views are not seen as being endorsed by schools.

Kalee Kreider, a spokeswoman for the former vice president, said the judge's decision backed key elements of the documentary.

"The ruling upheld fundamental pieces of the film and the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activities," she told The Associated Press. "Of the thousands of facts in the film, the judge only took issue with just a handful. And of that handful, we have the studies to back those pieces up."

Burton outlined nine problems — including Gore's claim that sea level rises of 23 feet might occur in the immediate future — something the judge characterized as "distinctly alarmist."

He also cited claims that Hurricane Katrina, the evaporation of most of Lake Chad and the melting of the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro were all caused by global warming. Burton said there was insufficient evidence to back those claims.

Burton's ruling follows a challenge from a part-time school official who complained that Gore's film was inaccurate and biased and should not be shown to pupils.

Stewart Dimmock, who works part-time on a school governing board, said he was fighting to have his children educated in an environment "free from bias and political spin."


But I guess the fact that this smear campaign was funded by the energy and mining interests means nothing? Because, you know, they wouldn;t have any hidden agenda to undermine environmental concerns, would they?

Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
Fuel and mining magnate backed UK challenge to An Inconvenient Truth

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Records filed at the Electoral Commission show the New Party has received nearly all of its money - almost £1m between 2004 and 2006 - from Cloburn Quarry Limited, based in Lanarkshire.

The company's owner and chairman of the New Party, Robert Durward, is a long-time critic of environmentalists. With Mark Adams, a former private secretary to Tony Blair, he set up the Scientific Alliance, a not-for-profit body comprising scientists and non-scientists, which aims to challenge many of the claims about global warming.

The alliance issued a press release welcoming last week's court ruling and helped publicise Dimmock's case on its website. It also advised Channel 4 on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial documentary screened earlier this year that attempted to challenge claims made about climate change.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

Lillith
10-16-2007, 04:55 AM
Using lies to rasie the awareness will actually do more damage than good in the long run. It will end up sending mixed signals to people who will tune everything off at the end.


Really only right wingers with their own agenda are asserting that An Inconvenient Truth contains lies at all. The vast majority of INDEPENDENT (ie, non-petrochemical, mining or industry sponsored) scientists agree that we humans are adversely affecting the environment and speeding up the warming cycle, bringing about previously unseen consequences. Polar bears will likely be extinct in the wild during my son's lifetime, and that is just one of many species currently on the brink. Many think that the Chinese river dolphin has already been lost.

The only bright spot is that the earth will eventually be fine, it's just we humans who are screwed. (all credit to George Carlin)

Bilbo
10-16-2007, 05:31 AM
Actually Bush DID congratulate Gore who had congratulated Bush when he conceded defeat in the U.S. Presidential elections.

wrong, it was only one of his speakers but keep believing in the goods of this nasty human being (if we can call him like that).

Sparko1030
10-16-2007, 06:21 AM
:yeah: Lillith :rocker2:

buddyholly
10-16-2007, 02:06 PM
Really only right wingers with their own agenda are asserting that An Inconvenient Truth contains lies at all.

So you can name the South Pacific island that has been abandoned, then? Can you say where the polar bears drowned for lack of an ice sheet to rest on?

BTW, now that the politicians have been given the green light by Gore, and everybody is rushing to provide biofuels, nobody on the Gore team is mentioning a report in Science that estimates that the increasing production of biofuels will release two to nine times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next thirty years than would be generated by using fossil fuels.
And worse, to meet the EU target of substituting 10% of transport fuel with biofuel by 2020 means turning 40% of European farmland over to biofuel. Since that is not possible, it will mean importing biofuel from poor areas of the globe, with resulting devastation of their ecosystems. This is what happens when politicians get involved in science.

Not many people are saying that the earth is not getting warmer, but a lot of people are saying that there is still no good information on how much of this is man made and how much is natural. The politicians don't like science getting in the way of their agendas, so that is why the Gore camp has declared the debate to be over. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that since the earth's climate has been constantly in change throughout geological time and no doubt is changing now, we should first try to determine how much of the present changes are not just nature at work, a process that proceeds without human intervention.
However, politicians don't like this concept of not being in charge, so I fear that by feeding their egos, they could make disastrous decisions.

cobalt60
10-16-2007, 03:37 PM
So you can name the South Pacific island that has been abandoned, then? Can you say where the polar bears drowned for lack of an ice sheet to rest on?

BTW, now that the politicians have been given the green light by Gore, and everybody is rushing to provide biofuels, nobody on the Gore team is mentioning a report in Science that estimates that the increasing production of biofuels will release two to nine times the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the next thirty years than would be generated by using fossil fuels.
And worse, to meet the EU target of substituting 10% of transport fuel with biofuel by 2020 means turning 40% of European farmland over to biofuel. Since that is not possible, it will mean importing biofuel from poor areas of the globe, with resulting devastation of their ecosystems. This is what happens when politicians get involved in science.

Not many people are saying that the earth is not getting warmer, but a lot of people are saying that there is still no good information on how much of this is man made and how much is natural. The politicians don't like science getting in the way of their agendas, so that is why the Gore camp has declared the debate to be over. To me it seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that since the earth's climate has been constantly in change throughout geological time and no doubt is changing now, we should first try to determine how much of the present changes are not just nature at work, a process that proceeds without human intervention.
However, politicians don't like this concept of not being in charge, so I fear that by feeding their egos, they could make disastrous decisions.

:worship: I totally get where you are coming from. From one scientist to another you have no idea how I wish politicians would stay OUT of medicine. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

MusicMyst
10-16-2007, 03:40 PM
Anytime people run around screaming, "The debate is over!", you have to immediately be suspicious that they're trying to hide something. No other area of science tries to cut off debate like that. But you'll notice that the people who are trying hardest to cut off debate aren't themselves scientists.

It's going to cost everyone billions of dollars to implement measures that supposedly will alleviate climate change. Those of us who will be paying the bill have a right to know that our money is being well-spent and yes, we have the right to ask questions about whether climage change is man-made, and if so, to what extent, and whether proposed solutions are cost-efficient.

buddyholly
10-16-2007, 05:31 PM
Really only right wingers with their own agenda are asserting that An Inconvenient Truth contains lies at all.

I think this remark shows very well how the Gore followers consider this issue to be political rather than scientific.

undomiele
10-16-2007, 07:37 PM
Considering BuddyHolly never cites links to articles and reports he likes to paraphrase, or any real kind of evidence to anything, anytime, anywhere (Worse, he conveniently refuses to even address solid reliable reports on the matter that I and other people have provided links for,) I have long since concluded BuddyHolly is voluntarily ignorant.

He didn't bother to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, or worse, failed to understand what it means and signifies. Here it is again: it is a panel of scientists from around the world that automatically throw out any kind of questionable evidence on climate change. Yet STILL they conclude human activities are mainly responsible for dire current and UNNATURAL climate changes that will inflict ecological devastation.

But of course this went completely over his head.

I remember a poster a year ago replied to his harebrained assertions and provided a great link to an NOAA report proving a connection between Hurricanes and Global Warming. He didn't even bother to answer the poster. Im 100% sure he didnt read it, cos what are science-based conclusions and facts agreed upon by the vast majority of experts when you're BuddyHolly??

He has no respect for any kind of reliable evidence authored by the experts, and I have yet to see him exert any real effort to quote and link to anything that can even resemble proof to his monkeyhouse opinions in all the time he has posted here.

Its almost sad he's so ridiculous. Its sad to acknowledge people who choose to be ignorant and continually imagine their opinions are on par with the legitimate experts. But ah well, it takes all kinds to make a world I guess.

One just has to see it as entertainment.

Sparko1030
10-16-2007, 08:57 PM
I think this remark shows very well how the Gore followers consider this issue to be political rather than scientific.


I for one consider it both. I have a botany background so I definatly know about the scientific method and what is "good" science. Anyone familar with ecosystems at all knows it takes very little change in a system to throw it off kilter. True, results are difficult to predict but to deny that there will be no consequence for our speeding up the warming process is not only ignorant but foolish.

And yes, science and politics should work togather on this issue. This would hardly be the first time. Unless you feel you can trust the corporate world to make necesary changes, we need government to make it change. One example of such "interferance" is the banning of ddt when it was implicated in the disapearance of raptors. Raptors have made a wonderful comeback. Had it been up to the companies that produced the insecticide that used ddt, our US symbol, the eagle, would now be extinct. I could list so many other expamples. Our water, air and food would be full of toxic pollutants( or I should say more that is already) had not our government acted (and everytime, there is ALWAYS someone denying the overwhelming scientific evidence. :rolleyes: )

I, for one, am thankful that scientific issues that involve the well being of the population become political issues. A world where we depended soley on the corporate world to police itself would be very dark world indeed.

MusicMyst
10-16-2007, 09:45 PM
Considering BuddyHolly never cites links to articles and reports he likes to paraphrase, or any real kind of evidence to anything, anytime, anywhere (Worse, he conveniently refuses to even address solid reliable reports on the matter that I and other people have provided links for,) I have long since concluded BuddyHolly is voluntarily ignorant.

He didn't bother to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, or worse, failed to understand what it means and signifies. Here it is again: it is a panel of scientists from around the world that automatically throw out any kind of questionable evidence on climate change. Yet STILL they conclude human activities are mainly responsible for dire current and UNNATURAL climate changes that will inflict ecological devastation.

But of course this went completely over his head.

I remember a poster a year ago replied to his harebrained assertions and provided a great link to an NOAA report proving a connection between Hurricanes and Global Warming. He didn't even bother to answer the poster. Im 100% sure he didnt read it, cos what are science-based conclusions and facts agreed upon by the vast majority of experts when you're BuddyHolly??

He has no respect for any kind of reliable evidence authored by the experts, and I have yet to see him exert any real effort to quote and link to anything that can even resemble proof to his monkeyhouse opinions in all the time he has posted here.

Its almost sad he's so ridiculous. Its sad to acknowledge people who choose to be ignorant and continually imagine their opinions are on par with the legitimate experts. But ah well, it takes all kinds to make a world I guess.

One just has to see it as entertainment.

Classic ad hominem attack.

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 02:19 AM
Its sad to acknowledge people who choose to be ignorant and continually imagine their opinions are on par with the legitimate experts.

I could never imagine my opinions to be on a par with yours.

But anyway, I am not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that I should always adopt the opinions of the legitimate experts, these being the ones approved by you, I suppose. Because it seems to be the trend on the left to insist that any scientist who says that the causes of global warming are not fully understood can not be considered legitimate and must be silenced. Thus the desperate assertion by the Gore people that the debate is over.

I gave up reading that rag The Guardian when I saw that even their sports pages have to be written with an anti-American bias. How can you consider anything to be reliable in that excuse for a newspaper?

Snowwy
10-17-2007, 02:39 AM
Just a couple of questions.

Does Gore ever talk about biofuels and their uses?
Does Gore ever mention CO2(greenhouse effect) as a concern in the movie?

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 03:02 AM
He didn't bother to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, or worse, failed to understand what it means and signifies. Here it is again: it is a panel of scientists from around the world that automatically throw out any kind of questionable evidence on climate change.

In the 2001 IPCC report the famous hockey stick graph that showed temperatures rising exponentially in recent and near future years, was printed five times. The graph became the dramatic highlight of Gore's movie and he had to get on a forklift to show us how temperatures were going to rise so fast in the near future.
Since then it was demonstrated that the computer programme that produced the graph was riddled with errors and in the newest IPCC report the graph has been forgotten. A Canadian computer analyst demonstrated that the programme was so biased that even when it was fed random numbers it produced a hockey stick shape. :o So yes, it is nice to see that the IPCC do eventually throw out their own evidence when it becomes questionable. No word yet on whether Gore will cut the evidence from his ''documentary.''

In the age of Google, giving single references is a bit outdated. Just Google ''hockey stick graph'', ''drowning polar bears'' etc and you will find more reports than you can deal with. How to screen out anything that does not show left-wing bias is something I can not help you with.

Sparko1030
10-17-2007, 06:36 AM
The debate over global warming has been going on for over 30 yrs and yet the right calls for more studies. (I only wish they had demanded as much evidence before we started an unesessary war in Iraq.) And all this worry about the cost-how much have they spent on study after study to get the results they hope will show gobal warming isn't man induced yet? What is implicit in these calls for more studies to prove global warming is human induced is that it hasn't been disproved either. Mabye its time we should accept the concensus of the scientific world that we are having an effect and put the burden proof (or disproof in this case) on the "non-believers". You may now try to prove that the global warming that is taking place is not due to the pollution caused by man.

Maybe if you work hard and build a credible argument,30 yrs from now some former politcian- George W. Bush even-will take up your cause so the world will listen. Who knows, if you are dillagent, you may earn a Nobel Peace prize yourself. ;)

undomiele
10-18-2007, 12:01 AM
In the 2001 IPCC report the famous hockey stick graph that showed temperatures rising exponentially in recent and near future years, was printed five times. The graph became the dramatic highlight of Gore's movie and he had to get on a forklift to show us how temperatures were going to rise so fast in the near future.
Since then it was demonstrated that the computer programme that produced the graph was riddled with errors and in the newest IPCC report the graph has been forgotten. A Canadian computer analyst demonstrated that the programme was so biased that even when it was fed random numbers it produced a hockey stick shape. :o So yes, it is nice to see that the IPCC do eventually throw out their own evidence when it becomes questionable. No word yet on whether Gore will cut the evidence from his ''documentary.''

In the age of Google, giving single references is a bit outdated. Just Google ''hockey stick graph'', ''drowning polar bears'' etc and you will find more reports than you can deal with. How to screen out anything that does not show left-wing bias is something I can not help you with.

Im not believing a single thing you say until you provide links and evidence mentioning that canadian computer analyst, the fact that disproves ipcc report, blah blah blah blah, actually was said and happened.

Do you understand me? Im NOT going to believe ANYTHING you say that isn't quoted or linked somewhere cos it's all just bullshit to my ears when you can't supply the evidence to back it up.

Your word just isn't good enough, capisce? If you say you have the facts on your side, prove it. Otherwise, you're either a big liar or increadibly lazy to find and attach a simple link to a post. In the meantime you have no problem writing 500 word posts.

For the record, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is NOT a left-wing organisation. If you had even bothered to read the monbiot piece you would've read that the Panel is actually very conservative. Don't you get it? ITS A CONSERVATIVE PANEL THAT BELIEVES GLOBAL WARMING IS TRUE.

If you don't believe it is a conservative panel, then prove it!

The Gucci one
10-19-2007, 02:04 AM
Really only right wingers with their own agenda are asserting that An Inconvenient Truth contains lies at all. The vast majority of INDEPENDENT (ie, non-petrochemical, mining or industry sponsored) scientists agree that we humans are adversely affecting the environment and speeding up the warming cycle, bringing about previously unseen consequences. Polar bears will likely be extinct in the wild during my son's lifetime, and that is just one of many species currently on the brink. Many think that the Chinese river dolphin has already been lost.

The only bright spot is that the earth will eventually be fine, it's just we humans who are screwed. (all credit to George Carlin)

Independent scientists thats a laugh where do you think they get funding from?

The Gucci one
10-19-2007, 02:08 AM
I think this remark shows very well how the Gore followers consider this issue to be political rather than scientific.


You could be spot on here. It's quite possible that this is a massive political movement trying to sweep left wing governments into power :(

mtw
10-20-2007, 06:46 PM
What did this man do exactly for peace in the world? The one concrete thing. And why did he get Nobel Price? Because he is American? And it is the only reason of that. Besides money for Peace Nobel Price are from the weapon trade. It would be not very strange, if Bush would get it. There were 2 candidates: Bush and Gore. Gore won.

Richard_from_Cal
10-20-2007, 11:01 PM
What did this man do exactly for peace in the world? The one concrete thing. And why did he get Nobel Price? Because he is American? And it is the only reason of that. Besides money for Peace Nobel Price are from the weapon trade. It would be not very strange, if Bush would get it. There were 2 candidates: Bush and Gore. Gore won.
Thank goodness. I thought he won to irritate me.

mtw
10-21-2007, 06:58 AM
Thank goodness. I thought he won to irritate me.


It is the next hypocrisy and shows that US has its chieftains practically everywhere. Firstly, it was a programm about this Gore prepared by him. The bloke goes with car, which uses so much petrol as tank. It is the first point of his hypocrisy, the second point is that he builds a house only using wood - it means cutting trees.. It was the house such big as palace, but made only of wood. So the second point of his hypocrisy ( and it is apparently showed in TV ). How many trees had he to cut to build this house? Cutting trees means very bad. These trees absorb CO2 - it means that woods decrease greenhouse effect. And what connections has his speech with peace. It is no connection. He did, not only one thing in his whole life to keep the peace.
It is funny. The Nobel Price for hipocrisy. It is the first time in history. In the next year maybe Bush will achieve this Nobel Perice ( he has blood ,,only,, of 1,8 mln people on his hands )and he says how much he loves the peace.

buddyholly
05-11-2013, 01:18 PM
Al Gore sells a TV channel that nobody watches to Qatar and for himself takes $100 million from the Qatar rulers.

Al Gore accuses the Canadian oil industry of using the earth's atmosphere as an "open sewer."

Al Gore says nothing about the Qatar oil industry.

Do the maths all you faithful disciples of the Saviour. You've never been had so good.

abraxas21
05-12-2013, 01:48 AM
wrong
Republicans=very bad ones
Democtats=bad ones

people easily forget about kennedy in vietnam or clinton in balkans

only worthy post in this thread, imho

Echoes
05-14-2013, 06:52 PM
Interview with Geir Lundestad, Secretary General of the Norwegian Nobel Commission at the Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley, September 20 2005

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/people5/Lundestad/lundestad-con2.html

Europe since World War II

What are the themes that you focused on in your academic work? Your present role [involves] the changes in Europe, and that understanding has been side by side with an analysis and understanding of the United States and their relationship together. So, let's talk a little about Europe. What changes have you witnessed in your lifetime in Europe, and what does that tell us about Europe's role in the world?

I started out as a Cold War scholar and I did some books on the origins of the Cold War, but when the Soviet Union collapsed I felt we had a turning point. If I wanted to remain a Cold War scholar, I had to learn Russian, because the new interesting sources were Russian, and I felt it was just too difficult to learn Russian. So, I changed my research interests. I concentrated on American/European relations, and I'm very happy I did that change, because with the end of the Soviet Union there has been a decline in interest in Cold War studies and the big topic, of course, is American/European relations. I've just written a book on the United States and Europe since '45, [including] the Cold War years when supposedly there was very close cooperation. Not quite as close as we think it was, but clearly it was much better than we have seen recently.

You use the term in that book, "empire by invitation." Tell us what you meant by that.

This is a term I invented in the 1980s and which I have developed further. In 1945 the big concern in Europe, and even Franklin Roosevelt's big concern, was that the United States could possibly go back to isolationism. They all knew what had happened in the past, after World War I. They didn't know what would happen [now]. So, the Europeans issued invitations to the Americans to make them stay, to make them take a strong interest. First, they wanted economic assistance, and there were many, many bilateral loans from America to Europe in '45 - '46. Then there was the Marshall Plan where, of course, Marshall at Harvard presented the initiative, but it was developed by the Europeans.

Then the Europeans wanted political support and ultimately they wanted military support. We read in all these American books that NATO was founded by the United States -- not really true. It was very much a European initiative, primarily a British initiative. The British insisted that the United States had to be militarily involved. There had to be an Atlantic security organization, not a European security organization, and for reasons which I explained, Washington went from saying no to this to saying yes in the spring of 1948.

I pursue this theme further: on the one hand, tremendous American influence in Europe, but on the other hand, a very strong European interest in having American involvement, primarily, of course, for the obvious reason that the Europeans needed support against the Soviet Union.

I guess the old saw is the Europeans wanted the Americans in to keep the Germans down and the Russians out.

Yes, this is the famous quote allegedly by Lord Ismay, who was the first Secretary General of NATO. He said that NATO was founded to keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. The interesting things is that all of us historians have been trying to identify this wonderful quote but nobody has actually been able to find it; but this has consistently been attributed to Lord Ismay and I think that is really the best explanation of what NATO was all about.

Europe then benefited both on the security side and the economic side from this.

Very much so. Of course, the Europeans got first these bilateral loans, and Europe got even more economic assistance in the years before the Marshall Plan than during the Marshall Plan, but it was very differently organized under the Marshall Plan. Europe did get the security guarantees the Europeans wanted through NATO.

In a way, the empire part -- the American influence was very, very substantial, but Washington concentrated on its overall goals, keeping the Soviets out, integrating West Germany into the European framework, to some extent opening up the European market or at least connecting the European market to the Atlantic economy, opening up Europe to American culture. But it was a very flexible American rule. The best example of this is that the United States actually promoted European integration much more strongly than the Europeans did themselves. It's very unusual for a hegemon, to use a political science term, to actually try to build up a second center, if you will, within its sphere of influence, but the U.S. clearly did for many decades.

Now on the one hand, with the end of the Cold War and the beginning of this new post - Cold War world, there was a lot of momentum toward economic integration, and partly that seems to have been a change in Europe's attitude toward the United States, and also the forces of globalization which the U.S., in the way it managed the world economy, had set into place. So, some of the changes that we're now seeing in Europe are an effort to deal with that conundrum, for their national economies to relate to the global economy.

The U.S. had very strong reasons for its promotion of European integration. It was the spillover from the American model. This is the way in which America was organized, so this is the way Europe should supposedly be organized, a federal system of much larger units. And if Europe became more self-supportive, then the Americans wouldn't have to do quite as much in the way of economic assistance and military contributions.

European integration would solve the German question. That was very difficult. What do we do about West Germany? We cannot set them loose, but we cannot keep them down, because that will promote nationalism. The obvious solution was European integration. Limit their freedom of action but also limit the freedom of action of all the other participants.

Finally, of course, European integration was also the answer to the Soviet threat. The crucial assumption on the American side was always that European integration would take place within an Atlantic framework. This was never really questioned by the Europeans until de Gaulle came along. But de Gaulle was -- well, he was certainly a difficult ally, but he did not receive much support from the other Europeans, so Washington could keep up its basic policy. Only with Nixon/Kissinger was this policy even questioned, it was so self-evidently right. Eisenhower in particular wanted European integration to go very far indeed; so did the Kennedy administration, and I think you can argue that with the exception of Nixon/Kissinger, this policy lasted even through the Clinton administration, the basic support for European integration.

But there were also question marks about the Atlantic framework, would the United States be able to maintain that Atlantic framework for integration. What we're seeing now is that there is concern in Washington that the Europeans no longer take the Atlantic framework (which is a code word for American leadership) for granted. Therefore, the support for European integration has -- I wouldn't say disappeared, but it has been very significantly reduced.

You mean, in the United States?

In the United States.

The argument is often made that the Europeans were all so exhausted by fighting each other that they sought to resolve all the security concerns within Europe; but in doing it under the rubric of dependence on the United States and NATO, they failed to make the transition to a new era in which they must seize their rule as a unit to ensure the common security of the world. Talk a little about that. Is that a correct analysis?

I would argue that European integration has been very successful. I'm a professor of history, so what we've seen in the form of European integration is almost incredible. Think of what German/French history used to be like -- two world wars -- and then, starting with the coal and steel community in 1950, European integration has expanded. The EU has been able to combine geographical widening with a deepening of content, the six members, the nine, the twelve, the fifteen and now the twenty-five, the coal and steel community, the treaties of Rome, the single integrated market, an economic and monetary union. And now they are trying to establish a common foreign and security policy. It's almost incredible what has happened.

Of course, impatient people, like journalists and most Americans, think, "Oh, well, what's the EU? It's crisis after crisis and they can never get their act together." This is what you hear all the time. And in a short-term perspective I certainly understand this. But if you add it all up in a historical perspective, it's very impressive indeed what has been accomplished.

But the EU will never, ever, become the "United States of Europe" in the sense that it will become like the U.S. No.

Do you think that at some point NATO will have to become something other than it was during the Cold War, where the United States and its military are such a dominant force? Doesn't there need to be a European NATO that is not the American NATO?

NATO has already become quite different from what it used to be during the Cold War. There are many more members, and NATO has become much more of a political organization. There's less emphasis on Article V and the military side -- the Europeans have to cooperate more on the defense side, but this is very difficult, because to make this possible, Britain and France have to agree. They are the two most important countries in the EU, certainly militarily. They have the most significant military capacities. The EU will never be able to agree on any significant military initiative if these two do not agree. Obviously, this means that you cannot have the British policy of Europe aligning itself very firmly with the U.S. all the time, and you cannot have the French policy of having all this distance to the U.S. There has to be a compromise. I think that's rather obvious. The difficult thing, of course, is to hammer this out in practice.

The balance is shifting. Now, with the Central and Eastern Europeans who support the United States very strongly and are very, very interested in military guarantees from the U.S., the larger group within the EU is very supportive of the U.S.


-----------

This was not Echoes speaking but the head of the Nobel Committee. :p

(Asselineau (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnGELf0u-vs) made a great conference busting the Nobel myth! But it's in French ...)

buddyholly
05-14-2013, 09:35 PM
The Cold War may be over, but I do not think that is the reason for global warming.

Ikaros
05-15-2013, 11:32 AM
Independent scientists thats a laugh where do you think they get funding from?

There are countries where universities are publicly funded, thus at the least more independent. Also, even if they are sponsored by parties opposing non-petrochemical, mining or industrial companies, at least you get both stories and are able to make your own informed decision.

The Nobel prize is a joke by the way.